## Facts

- The Indian Health Service (IHS) received annual lump-sum appropriations and used them under the Snyder Act and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to provide health services to American Indian and Alaska Native people.
- From 1978 to 1985, IHS funded the Indian Children’s Program (ICP), which provided clinical services to handicapped Indian children in the Southwest.
- Congress did not expressly authorize the ICP by statute or earmark appropriations for it, though Congress was aware of its operation through appropriations-related materials.
- In 1985, IHS discontinued direct clinical services under the ICP and redirected the funds to establish a nationwide treatment program.
- Eligible children and their representatives sued, alleging violations of the federal trust responsibility, the Snyder Act, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on procedural grounds, holding the termination was a legislative rule requiring APA notice-and-comment; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court reversed on the APA questions and remanded for consideration of due process claims not reached below.

## Issues

1. Whether IHS’s termination of the ICP and reallocation of its funding was “committed to agency discretion by law” and therefore unreviewable under APA § 701(a)(2).
2. Whether discontinuing the ICP was a legislative rule requiring APA notice-and-comment under § 553, rather than an exempt policy or internal management decision.

## Decision

- The Court held the ICP termination and reallocation decision was committed to agency discretion by law and unreviewable under APA § 701(a)(2).
- The Court held the decision was not a legislative rule requiring notice-and-comment; it was an internal allocation of resources from a lump-sum appropriation and a general policy choice about program direction.
- The Court rejected legislative history and the federal-Indian trust relationship as sources of judicially manageable standards to review the allocation decision.
- The Court distinguished Morton v. Ruiz because the ICP was not governed by a specific regulation or published eligibility rule that constrained IHS in the same manner.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings on respondents’ Fifth Amendment due process claims.

## Legal Principles

- APA review is presumptively available, but § 701(a)(2) bars review where agency action is committed to agency discretion and there is no meaningful law to apply.
- Allocation of funds from a lump-sum appropriation is traditionally treated as committed to agency discretion, absent statutory limitations that constrain sub-allocations.
- Committee reports and other legislative history do not, by themselves, create binding legal requirements that limit an agency’s discretion over lump-sum funds.
- The federal government’s trust relationship with Indians does not supply judicial standards to review discretionary funding allocations when governing statutes contain broad, non-specific directives.
- A significant program change may be exempt from APA notice-and-comment when it reflects internal resource allocation or a general statement of policy rather than a binding, substantive rule.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that IHS’s decision to discontinue the ICP and redirect funds from a lump-sum appropriation was unreviewable under APA § 701(a)(2) and did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking, while leaving due process claims for consideration on remand.


Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993)